Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias, although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.  I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject fully in Supernatural Religion, [117:1] to which I beg leave to refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is merely Dr. Lightfoot’s reply.  I will confine myself here to a few words on the fundamental question at issue.

Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have written a Gospel.  It is true that what he says is of very little weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point, his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.

Eusebius states that, in his last work [117:2], “Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles” ([Greek:  Logion kuriakon exegesis]), Papias wrote as follows: 

“And the elder said this also:  ’Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ.  For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles [or discourses] ([Greek:  all’ ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion] or [Greek:  logon).’  So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.” [118:1]

The first question which suggests itself is:  Does the description here given correspond with the Gospel “according to Mark” which we now possess?  Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed “without recording in order what was either said or done by Christ”?  A negative answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter’s words to it has consequently been denied by them.  It does not follow from this that there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.  However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our second Gospel.